Data has now been gathered to show that numerous species of plants and animals are evolving new traits in response to human influence. Human built structures, and human created chemicals, and human modified environments are driving changes in genomes in many species. This, logically, will eventually result in lots of new species.

We know that mass extinctions of the past are followed by mass speciation, and numerous new forms of life. For example, the loss of dinosaurs was followed by thousands of new species of birds and mammals. If humans are driving a new mass extinction, will this also result in mass speciation, and thousands of new forms of life?

Unless we manage to kill off all other forms of life on the planet, then yes. Like it or not, humans are natural and, by simple extension, so are their products and effects. We haven't yet approached an artificial KT event.

Like it or not, humans are "by definition" may be natural BUT WHAT WE DO: is not. Its in the language: natural vs man-made. Man-Made: NOT made by nature. A difference worth keeping in mind.

but to the equation offered, we are already creting a KT event that is going on right now. so....for every species evolving to live off our poisons and detritus, there are 1000's dying off. If you want to suggest 1000's of new forms of life coming into being, the math would be millions going out.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Poodle wrote:Unless we manage to kill off all other forms of life on the planet, then yes. Like it or not, humans are natural and, by simple extension, so are their products and effects. We haven't yet approached an artificial KT event.

That's on a optimistic day, at least.

Nuclear weapons are natural? Really? Next time I go mushroom hunting I'll pick up some nukes?

Yes, what humans do is natural. bobbo and Gawd. How could it be otherwise? A panda eats shoots and leaves - that's natural. Humans make things and some of them are powerful (like nukes), but without humans they couldn't exist. Therefore they are natural, as they follow from nothing but natural phenomena (OK - they're also artificial by definition, but they exist as the result of natural phenomena).

My statement was directed at Lance's question. Basically, if we do not destroy the entire environment with our antics, then my opinion is that perfectly normal speciation will tend to fill any gaps we create.

This is in no way a recommendation or the stuff of my wishes. But I think it holds out some hope.

Poodle, you are assuming that "natural" means "allowable", or "it's okay, happens all the time!" But we are supposed to be a thinking species, and should be cognizant of the results of our actions. It's "natural" that things die, but shooting all our kids in a drunken rage just doesn't seem "natural" to me.

Poodle. Really????? BY DEFINITION. Of course..... everything "in" the universe is "natural." but by definition, a man made construct that is easy to see is the subset of "natural" that is created by man, and only by man. Without Man...the man made things in the universe would not exist. A watch does not naturally exist..... like the Nukes. man is turning this man made intellectual application to modifying (again "man-made") himself and will soon be unnatural himself.

Or............. skip the subtlety, the distinction..... an sure, everything in the Universe is Natural..... BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU DEFINE IT.

See how that works?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Well, it was worth a try. OK - it's tenuous argument, but what I'm trying to get at is that humans are the root cause. I'm an optimist - I hope that we will come to our senses at a point short of completely {!#%@} the world up. If we do, speciation stands a chance in the long term - the last line in Lance's post may be correct.

@Gawdzilla ... Tomatoes? Or is MSG found only in human-bred varieties?

Poodle wrote:Well, it was worth a try. OK - it's tenuous argument, but what I'm trying to get at is that humans are the root cause. I'm an optimist - I hope that we will come to our senses at a point short of completely {!#%@} the world up. If we do, speciation stands a chance in the long term - the last line in Lance's post may be correct.

The last line of Lance's post is about as relevant as your own. Where conditions for life exist: there will always be speciation..........naturally. Lance's post amounts to a big so what? NOBODY CARES, nor should they, what specieation takes place as humans saw off the evolutionary branch we swing from.

AGAIN: We are in a human caused KT event RIGHT NOW.

AGAIN: Do the math: extinct minus new = so what.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Poodle wrote:Well, it was worth a try. OK - it's tenuous argument, but what I'm trying to get at is that humans are the root cause. I'm an optimist - I hope that we will come to our senses at a point short of completely {!#%@} the world up. If we do, speciation stands a chance in the long term - the last line in Lance's post may be correct.

The last line of Lance's post is about as relevant as your own. Where conditions for life exist: there will always be speciation..........naturally. Lance's post amounts to a big so what? NOBODY CARES, nor should they, what specieation takes place as humans saw off the evolutionary branch we swing from.

The last line of Lance's post is what Lance's post was about. It's called speculation. Someone cares, obviously.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:AGAIN: We are in a human caused KT event RIGHT NOW..

My opinion is that we're nowhere near anything like the KT event. We have been very damaging and could go on to be even more so. I hope not.

............and you really don't appreciate the level of extinction going on right now...........its very rapid in geologic scale, hardly noticeable in human scale.............so, which scale you going to use when comparing the Anthropocene to the KT event? The only thing you are relating to is an asteroid hitting Earth.... rather than being hit by mankinds co2 waste product.=================>>>>> "Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate," ((bobbonote: very much on par with KT)) http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/prog ... on_crisis/

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

No, I hadn't seen that, bobbo - but I read it rather differently. However, we're sideslipping a little. Lance's point wasn't whether or not human activity is more or less destructive than the KT event but whether our predations will result in increased speciation.

Even so, I do not accept human activity as an event equating to KT. We are animals which developed on this planet and our activities, no matter how damaging, are the results of natural earth-bound development. We have, indeed, developed damaging technologies in a relatively short time but we have not even approached the huge whammie which KT was. In certain cases, we have even halted and reversed decline, which KT never did.

However, to repeat the point, we are capable of damage. The question is whether the current animal population of the planet will develop in ways which will overcome that damage. You never know - we may be the impetus which supercharges the development of slugs and turns them into the dominant intelligent species in our galaxy.

There are not yet many species which require human made environments to exist. AFAIK, the only one is a bacteria that eats plastic - and even then, maybe it has a larger potential diet than that, and does not actually require the plastic.

We will have succeeded when there is, for example, a salamander that NEEDS parking garages in order to survive and procreate.

. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

The animal constructs is a valid response/contribution/fine point. It is "different" from "non-living" artifacts...if artifacts is even the right word. I agree everything can be thought of as "natural" as opposed to supernatural...but it is a subset that is easily distinguishable from non-living processess. Whether or not this distinction is useful--depends on the subject.

Poodle: reread the links. You are WAY OFF in appreciating the time frames. You might also be confusing the high die off of "individuals" at the time of the asteroid impact...but species die off is a related but different issue.

Lance and I guess you need to sum up both sides of the equation: how many species lost vs how many species created. Only looking at half the equation can never be meaningful.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Just a point on extinction rate. Bobbo is being quite excessive in his claims. The truth is that no one actually knows the extinction rate, though all sorts of wild claims are made. Currently, there are 10 to 20 extinctions per year that we can be sure of. There are a wide range of calculations to try to estimate how many extinctions are happening that we cannot measure. They range from perhaps 100 per year to hundreds of thousands. I tend to lean more towards the 100 figure.

THe problem is that all the estimates are based on calculations, which in turn are based on various assumptions. Each and any of those assumptions could be wrong, and probably are.

Lance: I agree current extinction rates are pretty soft. Very "if - then" which isn't scientific. Whole lot of animals on the edge though..... if not all of us except for cockroaches and rats?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?